31
20.75
0.67
26

Recent PublicationsView all

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To outline what is known about collaborative work between the main stakeholders in mental health and psychiatry (professionals, patients or service users and family members). To learn from recent practice what are the main areas of joint work, what is working well, what are the key issues and problems and what has been learned from doing it. Service users and family members are valued in education and training. Service users as peer support workers have helped patients recover, and methods of participatory research can bring new insights. There is a need to support and build an evidence base for these new ways of working. The run-down of institutions, the new paradigm of recovery and human rights laws have led to increased joint working in the field of law and policy, research, education and training, service provision and coercion. Joint working challenges the old ways of knowledge creation and practices such as coercive treatment. More work is needed to build on what is being learned and move to genuine equality and partnership.
    No preview · Article · May 2012 · Current opinion in psychiatry

  • No preview · Article · May 2011 · The Health service journal
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following article examines the role of trust between police and communities in the context of “new terrorism,” drawing upon data that examined engagement and partnership work between communities and police within this context. A key finding is that in a low-trust context, as characterized by “new terrorism,” it is important for police officers to focus initially upon building contingent trust by trust-building activities that demonstrate trustworthiness. Partnerships between police and members of Muslim communities carrying out sensitive intervention work with those deemed at risk from committing acts of terrorism appear to feature implicit trust. These partnerships are less focused upon short-term outcomes, but rather, individuals are committed to these relationships so that within the partnerships themselves trust is implicit between officers and Muslim community members. This suggests that police within specialist counter-terrorism units underpinned specifically by principles of community policing are best placed to provide the kind of long-term interaction and trust-building that is required for sensitive partnership work to take place, for contingent trust to be built into implicit trust.Basándonos en datos que examinan el compromiso y el trabajo conjunto dentro del contexto del “nuevo terrorismo” este artículo examina el rol de la confianza entre los oficiales de policía y las comunidades musulmanas. Un hallazgo clave es que en un contexto de baja confianza, característico del “nuevo terrorismo,” es importante para los oficiales de policía enfocarse inicialmente en la construcción de una confianza contingente por medio de actividades que construyan y demuestren dicha confianza. La colaboración entre la policía y los miembros de las comunidades Musulmanas que realizan un delicado trabajo deintervención con aquellos que están en riesgo de cometer actos de terrorismo parecería mostrar una confianza implícita. Estas colaboraciones están menos enfocadas en resultados de corto plazo, en lugar de ello los individuos están comprometidos en estas relaciones para que la confianza entre los oficiales y los miembros de la comunidad Musulmana llegue a estar implicada. Esto sugiere que los oficiales de policía asignados a unidades anti-terroristas ancladas específicamente en principios de colaboración ciudadana están mejor ubicados para proveer el tipo de interacción de largo plazo y de construcción de confianza que es requerido para llevar a cabo un trabajo de colaborativo delicado, para que la confianza contingente sea incorporada en la confianza implícita.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2010 · Politics & Policy
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.